At 10:18 12/02/04 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:
>I think the answer is easy (but we'll see if someone confounds me)
>The problem would appear to revolve around the question of whether that
>particular
>assertion is a part of the graph its commenting on, or is it not.
>If it is a part, then you have the liar's paradox. So it can't be.
>
>The solution would seem to be that if you want to make assertions
>about a graph G1, those (provenance) assertions need to be
>made in a second graph G2.
This is resonant (to my mind) with Tarskian semantics :-)
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact